do_decide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully reveals the mode-dependent control flow (who makes the decision, and that recording is a separate do_record step, implying do_decide itself does not persist), plus what the response contains. It does not state permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens when no allowed_options match.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, then moves to input, output, and mode behavior in a predictable order. However the telegraphic brace notation and single-letter abbreviations make it cryptic rather than crisp; several sentences are terse to the point of ambiguity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return-value restatement is redundant rather than necessary, but the mode semantics fill in behavior the schema cannot express. For a decision tool that branches into a follow-up do_record call, the description still leaves gaps: what teacher_cost changes, how probabilities/confidence should influence the agent's choice, and when auto/rule mode applies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema is a single opaque `payload` object with additionalProperties true, so the description's field list (point_id required, context required, teacher_cost optional) is the only parameter documentation that exists. That is a meaningful addition, but it gives no types, formats, or meaning for each field — context and teacher_cost are left entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Ask for a decision" names a resource (a decision) but the verb is abstract — it does not say whether the tool computes a decision, records one, or requests one from the caller. The input/output signature and the mode branches add concrete shape, but there is no differentiation from the sibling dm_decide, which by name is the obvious alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives per-mode guidance: in teacher mode the agent should decide itself and then call do_record, and in auto/rule mode it should use the returned choice. This is real when-to guidance for the follow-up call, but there is no statement of when to choose this tool over dm_decide or do_analyze, and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.